In the name of Allah. Peace and blessings be upon the Prophet. As salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu. Did you have an older sibling who used to beat you at almost every game of strategy? When I was a little child, my older brother and much older sister used to beat me at board games and games of strategy so much that it used to make me upset and cry and throw things, as little kids often do. They even conspired against me until I was out, then they would compete against each other. For animals and Man, play often imitates life. Lion cubs play at fighting, attacking, bringing down each other, even their parents give them live prey to play with. Until they are old enough to start hunting with their family. As for Man, when one player controls the rules and knows and devices strategies which other players fall into, than that one player will win almost every time. This is similar to our reality today. The Muslim countries have submitted to democratic reforms which America and its global institutions encourage, under the false presumption that Muslims will somehoe bring about Islam. Thus, by engaging in the 'democratic process', Muslim countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Iraq, will gradually implement this or that ruling/hukm of Shariah, until most or all the ahkam are implemented, or most of the people will support its implementation. However, the reality is quite at odds with this utopic and unsubstantiated plan which has no tie to Islam or the methodology of the Prophet (saaw) or his companions (rahm). In recent history, America and Europe have set up obsticals to Muslim countries in particular who have attempted to use 'the democratic process'. When Algeria's FIS agitated for Islam, the secular nationalist led Algerian government allowed for open elections in 1991. The FIS won a majority of votes in the first round of elections, setting it up to bring forth Islam peacefully and through the democratic process. However, America and Europe were aghast at any such matter occurring. In America, the phrase used to describe this was: one man, one vote, one time- which was to say Islam could not be allowed to come forth through democracy. Thus, America instructed/supported the Algerian military's nullifying the election. The FIS, a coalition party, fractionalized into various groups. Among its militant wing were government operatives who advocated bloody massacres and uncontrollable violence. Thus, the Algerian military engaged in a full spectrum conflict to retain control: 1)present the official government position and its military operations with uniformed forces 2)undertake covert operations with both special forces and foreign mercenaries which no one knew about 3)engage in instigating violence among its infiltrated operatives so as to lead the opposition into violence that the people would not support. All of this served to break the will of the Muslim people in favor for Islam. As a result, a large number of Algerians today are repulsed at the idea of Islam simply because they associate it with the internal conflict and massacres during the civil war. Sudan was led towards Islam by the National Islamic Front in the late 1980s which led to a coup by general Bashir. Bashir was said to be an ally of the NIF which sought to use the democratic process of the Sudanese republic to usher in Islam. Bashir, trained in Egyptian military academy and served under Egyptian commanders for a time, was keen to avoid the full implementation of an Islamic state, rather keeping the implementation of Islam within a nationalist republican framework, and according to limited degrees. But as Bashir catered to Western constructs (nationalism and republicanism), Western powers used their key assets against Khartoum: secessionist wars. Thus, America armed, trained, equipped the SPLA and Garang (trained in an American military academy) until the SPLA was strong enough to resist Khartoum and implement secularized treaties. The military conflict with the SPLA succeeded to absorb decades of Sudan's wealth, resources, attention, until Bashir capitulated to the Western demands against Islam more and more. Ultimately, Bashir agreed to the secession of southern Sudan, but claimed he would implement Islam afterwards. However, other forces began rebelling as well, including the Eritrean backed eastern Sudanese groups, the Western'Chadian backed Darfurian groups, etc. Meanwhile, Bashir has driven the NIF away from political power, agreed to various secular reforms, and yet Western pressure continues in the form of an ICC (international criminal court) indictment for war crimes. Turkey also is an example of failure in using the democratic process for Islam. The Turkey constitution empowers the military to function for national security independent of elected officials. Several times in Turkey's history, the people elected prime ministers who were advocates for Islam, only for the military to stage coups which removed the PM and his party and secured secularism. Adnan Menderes and Erbakan were famous prime ministers elected to office who support Islam to various degrees, but both were overthrown by the military. Many more examples abound. And in various countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangledesh, Malaysia, Western powers have set up obsticals, conflicts, and opponents to the resumption of Islam in life to the point that adherence to the 'democratic process' proves to be a recipe, a plan for failure. Egypt recently had an election which positioned the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate the parliement, but the SCAF which runs the country has declared they will have final editorial power over the constitution. To no surprise, SCAF'S "final say" over the Egyptian people's constitution sounds exactly like US Secretary of Defense's Donald Rumsfeld's declaration of "final say" over the Iraqi constitution too. Surprised? Or not surprised? And Tunisia's secular liberal political establishment which has served Europe for decades was recently granted overwhelming control by An Nahda party over the ministry of defense. Why did An Nahda, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, grant authority of the military to secularists? Because the Western powers demanded it. (And an Nahda party in Tunisia, the NIF in Sudan, the FIS in Algeria, Erbakan in Turkey were all Muslim Brotherhood affiliates). As well, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has openly stated they do not want to bring forth an Islamic state, they will adhere to the secular constitution. At what point do we realize that the "game" is fixed, that the strategies are designed against us as long as we adhere to THEIR game? And behind the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy is the gradualism approach of piecemeal picking and choosing hukm, like they were fruit at a fruit stand. Which fruit is too green to pick today? It is not the auspice of Man to decide a matter which Allah and His Messenger (saaw) have already decided upon. the Sovereignty belongs to Allah. The Sovereignty, Command, Hukm belongs to Allah, not Man. Not even the Prophet (saaw) decided to withhold a hukm or revelation for some issue he percieved in his mind. Rather, he implemented upon receiving it. And the sahaba (rah) complied accordingly- they did not hide belief in a hukm like the Muslim Brotherhood hides belief in an Islamic state. Rather, what has happened is the Muslim Brotherhood has violated many aspects of Islam for political gain. By refusing and failing to stand against nationalism, they have become confined by the nationalist parameters whereever they are. Nationalims limits their ideas, their goals, their plans. And likewise for many other limitations which the kufar and enemies of Islam have erected, such as submission to international law and treaties. And Allah knows best.